Sections

Matlock investigation

Duderstadt's actions were appropriate

Matlock said he was attempting to enter the Central Campus Recreation Building to judge a basketball contest when the DPS officer allegedly pushed him for entering the wrong door. Matlock said he responded by lifting his hands and saying, "Don't touch me." Matlock claims the DPS officer responded by pushing him against a wall and handcuffing him before Matlock could identify himself as a contest judge. Matlock claims the DPS officer did not ask him to leave before the officer pushed Matlock.

The case puts the University in an awkward position -- the controversy is between one of its top officials and its own police force. Few objective parties are left in this scenario who could conduct an impartial investigation and make unbiased decisions.

Enter the Michigan State Police. Duderstadt requested a state-conducted investigation three days after the incident, citing the necessity of a fair investigation as motivation for the request. He said, "Although I have great respect for the efforts of the Department of Public Safety in providing a safe environment at public events, I want to be certain that all parties get a fair hearing."

Duderstadt made the appropriate decision. The case involves highly visible University figures -- if mishandled by a biased party, it could turn ugly. It would be nearly impossible for the University to handle the investigation internally and maintain objectivity. Even asking the Ann Arbor Police Department to conduct an investigation would be too awkward -- it sits close to the University's police force. Everyone within the University community with the skills to conduct such an investigation has a vested interest in the outcome -- the very definition of bias. Duderstadt made an appropriate and timely call for assistance from the outside. The quicker a thorough investigation is completed, the lesser the margin for controversy. DPS and OAMI are two departments central to University operations, and to see a conflict of this nature is troubling.

Thus far, the administration has responded to the incident appropriately. Matlock's statement followed soon after the arrest, and Duderstadt's responding request for investigation came shortly thereafter. One party remains auspiciously silent -- DPS has not offered a statement, explanation or anything else justifying the arrest or its alleged role in the conflict. If DPS has nothing to hide, it should not delay any longer in releasing a statement. Its reluctance hinders the investigation and cheats the University community of an accurate account of the events. In light of other involved parties' prompt response, DPS is remiss in its hesitance.

The state police will obtain this information whether or not DPS offers it. The question now is whether DPS will come clean and offer the information before the state police make it look foolish.